Insights
Publications

Supreme Court Allows Recovery of Foreign Lost Profits For Shipping Components of a Patented Invention Overseas

6/25/2018 Articles

On June 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision in WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophyiscal Corp. addressing whether foreign lost profits can be recovered for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) of the Patent Act.  The decision can be retrieved here.

In a 7-2 decision, the majority opinion authored by Justice Thomas reversed the Federal Circuit’s denial of foreign lost profits resulting from infringement under § 271(f)(2).  The Supreme Court’s decision could have broad implications for domestic manufacturers, increasing the potential awards a patentee may recover in a U.S. lawsuit and potentially incentivizing manufacturing to be moved abroad.

The WesternGeco Decision

Foreign Lost Profits Recoverable For Infringement Of Section 271(f)(2):
  Congress enacted Section 271(f) to close a perceived loophole in patent law.  Before the enactment of 271(f), an accused infringer could domestically manufacture components of an infringing system, which alone did not infringe, for assembly overseas into an infringing device and escape liability.  To close this gap, Section 271(f) generally speaking made the “supply” of components of a patented invention from the U.S. an act of infringement. 

WesternGeco sued ION Geophysical for patent infringement under Section 271(f)(2) and won at trial, including an award of foreign lost profits.  ION Geophysical appealed that decision, and the Federal Circuit reversed the lost profits award, relying on the presumption against extraterritoriality (i.e., the presumption that U.S. laws apply only within the U.S.).  WesternGeco appealed.

In reversing the Federal Circuit and finding that foreign lost profits could be recovered, the majority relied quite heavily on the language of the Patent Act, and Sections 271(f) and 284 in particular.  The majority’s extraterritoriality analysis examined the statutes’ “focus” and the location of the prohibited conduct in question, and started with the language of Section 284, which provides for damages adequate to compensate for “the infringement.”  The question thus became where “the infringement” provided for under Section 271(f)(2) occurred.  The majority concluded that the “infringement” under Section 271(f)(2) was the “supply” of certain components of the patented invention, all of which was domestic conduct which did not run afoul of the presumption against extraterritoriality.  Since that infringing act did not raise extraterritoriality concerns, and Section 284 requires damages adequate to compensate for that infringement, including lost profits, the majority concluded that foreign lost profit damages could be awarded for this domestic infringing act of supplying components.  This holding is both broad and narrow; while the majority generally held that foreign lost profits could be obtained for infringement under Section 271(f)(2) without any apparent exceptions or caveats, its holding can be read to be limited to Section 271(f)(2) specifically.

The majority dismissed the dissent as conflating the injury itself with the damages arising from that injury, finding that the injury itself was domestic, and thus did not raise extraterritoriality concerns.

The Dissent:  The two dissenting justices, Justices Gorsuch and Breyer, came to the opposite conclusion in light of the statutory language.  They found that the language of the Patent Act did not support an award of foreign lost profits, and also expressed comity concerns (which echoed their concerns at oral argument). 

Practical Impact of WesternGeco

Broader Recovery For Patentees:  In cases of infringement under 271(f)(2), patentees can now more assuredly seek foreign lost profits, potentially increasing damage awards in a patent litigation suit.  This may also affect the scope of discovery, as patentees may be more interested in obtaining information on foreign sales when bringing claims under Section 271(f)(2).  It remains to be seen whether future cases will try to expand this holding to other provisions of Section 271.

Relocation Of Manufacturing Overseas:  The WesternGeco decision may also impact manufacturing in the United States. Hypothetically, domestic manufacturers may be incentivized to move operations overseas, with this increase in damage exposure.

Firm Highlights

News

Jeff Fisher Named Among California’s 2020 Top Trade Secrets Lawyers by the Daily Journal

SAN FRANCISCO, October 7, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Jeffrey M. Fisher was named among the “Top Trade Secrets Lawyers” in California by the Daily Journal . Jeff is...

Read More
Publication

How Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws Affect Platform Providers’ Relationships With ISVs, API Developers, and Scrapers

A wide variety of business and consumer platforms host mutually beneficial ecosystems. But these ecosystems are also fraught with antitrust risk that arises when platforms try to terminate or modify the terms of third-party...

Read More
News

52 Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2021

Read More
Publication

Three Steps Licensees Can Take to Protect Their IP Rights in Bankruptcy

During periods of widespread economic disruption such as the present, operating businesses must be able to identify and respond to threats to the financial health of their contracting counterparts in order to protect key...

Read More
News

Benchmark Litigation 2021 Ranks Farella Among Top Litigation Firms in California

SAN FRANCISCO, October 12, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel continues to be ranked among the top litigation firms in California in the  Benchmark Litigation  2021 guide. Farella was ranked “Highly Recommended” for Dispute Resolution...

Read More
Publication

Monetizing University Patent Portfolios During the Economic Downturn

Colleges and universities may be leaving money on the table with under-utilized patent portfolios. The time is right, as the law has shifted in favor of patent owners, both in inter partes review litigation...

Read More
Publication

Artificial Intelligence Can’t Patent Inventions: So What?

The USPTO’s  recent landmark decision  ( 16/524,350 ) concluding artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be a named patent inventor perhaps sparked fears of super-robots inventing critical technologies that, alas, receive no patent protection. If an...

Read More
Publication

Breaking up the Patent Monopoly for the Benefit of Batteries

The patent monopoly is at odds with the global need for battery storage technology. As the world mobilizes towards climate change solutions, companies with battery patents will face increasing pressure to share this critical...

Read More
News

3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial

Eugene Mar spoke to Law360 about the  MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc.  case in the article, " 3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial." In the article, Eugene said he's...

Read More
News

Eight Farella Braun + Martel Lawyers Listed in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2021

SAN FRANCISCO/ST. HELENA, CA, August 20, 2020: Eight Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were listed in the inaugural Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch . This recognition is awarded to attorneys who are earlier in...

Read More